I assume that what the young girl really wanted to ask is, How does someone know when he is born again? And it is obvious that the priest didn't have a clue. Had he be born of the Spirit himself, and if he had understood the truth, he could have told her the simple truth of Jesus: The Spirit bears witness with our spirit when it enters (Romans 8), just as Jesus tried to explain to Nicodemus (John 3:1-8), and just as it happened when the disciples were born again (Acts 2). For the whole truth on what being saved means, you might want to listen to our cassettes series: "What Must I Do To Be Saved?"And for the truth concerning the New Birth, we have a series of teaching tapes by that title, "The New Birth". Let me know if you would like to hear them.

I don't think you misrepresented his answer, either this time or the last. The simple fact is that knowing that one is doing the will of God is no proof of that one is born again, because one may do the will of God--and know it--before being born again (that is, being baptized with the Spirit into the body of Christ). In fact, one must do the will of God and know it or he can never receive God's Spirit. Obedience must come first (Acts 5:32). Realizing God exists and believing that He will reward those who diligently seek him does not mean that we are born again; rather, that is how we first come to God (Heb. 11:6). In other words, in order for me to ask God for forgiveness of sin, I obviously must (1) acknowledge that He exists and (2) believe that He will answer my prayer if I am diligent in seeking His face.

Sheila, regardless of how hard we may try to make it do so, the priest's answer just doesn't hold water. It is not the truth.

Of course, it is good that the priest was encouraging someone to do God's will, but I cannot but harbpr doubts that he has done so himself. If the young woman who asked him that question on the radio does do what he suggested that she do, if she obeys God's will, she will receive God's Spirit, even if the priest himself has not done so. It reminds me of what Jesus said to his disciples one time: "Whatsoever the Pharisees bid you to observe, that observe and do. But do not ye after their works, for they say, and do not" (Mt. 23:3).

Thanks for the communication, Sheila. Keep searching. Jesus said that all those who seek will find. You are on the right track. May the Lord be with you.

Your non-Christian Servant,

John

PS To be biblically correct, we must not follow the wide-spread Christian practice of using "saved" for "born again". We may be born of the Spirit now, but "salvation" means to be glorified with Christ Jesus his return. It is best understood as the future hope of the saints. For example, Paul said that our salvation is nearer now than it was when we first believed (Rom. 13:11). If salvation were received when we believed, our salvation could not be the "end of our faith" (1Pet.1:9). Salvation is what Jesus will bring to the faithful in the body of Christ when he returns.

Good to hear from you.

To answer your question, the first reason that receiving the Spirit was not mentioned in that passage is that it was not available. Jesus had to die in order for the Spirit to be given to men. Both Jesus and the rich young ruler were still living under the Old Covenant, and keeping the commandments of God was the way to go.

Secondly, keeping the commandments of God is how to receive the Spirit, as Peter preached to the elders of Israel in Acts 5. "We are his witnesses, and so is the holy Ghost, which God has given to them that obey him." Only the Jews who obeyed God's Old Testament Law, were blessed with the holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost.

Thanks for the question. Keep it up. All roads on earth may lead to Rome, but all roads in the Bible lead to Jesus.

Your servant in Christ,

John

To "have blood on one's hands" means to be partly guilty for someone else losing his soul because of sin. Read Ezekiel 33:7-8. If Ezekiel had failed to warn a wicked man of the coming judgment, the wicked man would still die in his sin, but God would also hold Ezekiel guilty for the sin that the wicked man committed.

To "have blood on one's hands" can also mean to be guilty of murder. There are verses for that, too, that you can look up in your concordance.

JDC

Thanks for writing. This is an important question. By the way, I really enjoyed getting to meet you the other day and look forward to seeing you again.

There are some things that the Lord leaves to our discretion. For example, Paul told the saints in Corinth that if someone invited them to a feast, they were free to choose whether to go or not. Those are the kinds of choices that we are able to make without harming ourselves or others.

On the other hand, there are some decisions that are of such importance to us individually, and to everyone around us, that God will not allow us to make them. Deciding who is a believer and who is not is one such decision. We have no influence with God on that; the best that we can do is simply believe what He has said concerning that issue.

Paul told the saints in Rome that "if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his" (Romans 8). So, it is wise that we agree with Paul that until one receives the holy Ghost, he is not yet born into the family of God. There is, of course, a believing before receiving the Spirit (Hebrews 11:6), but how are any of us mortals to know who is truly believing and who is not? We do not have the power to see into the hearts of others. And we certainly cannot take at face value the claims of people who say they believe. Jesus didn't (John 2:23-25). The only way for any of us to know when a person has truly believed, then, is to wait on God, who alone knows the hearts of men, to give His witness of genuine faith. Peter said it this way in Acts 15:8, "But God, who knows the hearts, bore them witness, giving them the holy Ghost even as he did unto us at the beginning."

Also, is it not possible that a marraige between a believer and an unbeliever could help the unbeliever find God and receive the Holy Ghost?

From what I have seen, disobeying God always hinders the unconverted from pursuing the righteousness of God. There may be exceptions, but God would have to make them. I cannot.

In Luke 20:34-35, it says "Marriage is for people here on earth. But that is not the way it will be in the age to come. For those worthy of being raised from the dead won't be married then." What was meant by that?

In the resurrection, there will be no such thing as male and female. No marriages. Angels are neither male nor female, for example. Gender is apparently unique to creatures of earth.

Thanks again for writing, Sheila. I hope my comments helped clear things up. Stay in touch!

JDC

From what I can see, J., the entire body of Christ is in a state of disobedience. All of us. That is why we tremble at the thought of the coming wrath of God, and at the same time, that is why we stand in awe of His incredible mercy and patience with His people. He knows that we are made of clay. The whole body is divided, confused, weak, and dirty. Still, God blesses His children, not for the reason that some seem to think (that is, that the body is pleasing Him), but simply out of His goodness. Hopefully we will learn from His love to abandon our own thoughts and ways for His.

When I consider your question, J. (and I ponder this question often), I am reminded of the Old Testament king of Judah, Asa, who had "a perfect heart" toward God (1Kgs. 15:14), and yet he allowed the people of God in Judah to worship in the high places. In his zeal for God, Asa even removed his own mother from being queen because she "made an idol"; still, he could not bring himself to force the people to cease their idolatry in the high places of Judah. I think about him often. He had the military authority, the political position, and the theological right to quash that form of disobedience in his own country, but he didn't do it. Still, he was said to have had a perfect heart with God. There is something for us who know the truth to learn from that.

When I look at the many holy-Ghost-baptized saints who are entangled in Christianity, J., I wonder what, if anything, King Asa would say to them were he here today. Sometimes, an error becomes so inculcated into the psyche of a people that to oppose their error is to frighten them. To question the things to which they have grown accustomed is to appear as their enemy. We might well drive God's sheep deeper into Christianity's cold cave if we try to rescue them without being led by God to do so. Moses learned that very painful lesson when he murdered an Egyptian, wrongly assuming that the Israelite slaves would see him as a hero. As a result of Moses's haste, God's people suffered in slavery an extra thirty years. It is no wonder that Solomon wrote, "He that hasteth with his feet sinneth."

Over the last few weeks I have been listening to news reporters and others on television and radio, and reading articles in newspapers in which politicians, sports figures, advertisers, and others have been speaking of the "new millennium" into which (they say) we are about to enter. The fact is that a new millennium will not begin until January 1, 2001, and many of those people to whom I have been listening must have the intelligence to know that. Still, they are swept along with the tide of excitement about the "new millennium" into which the masses seem to think we are about to enter at the stroke of midnight tonight. In circumstances such as these (and life on this earth is full of them), intelligence is pushed aside; the facts become irrelevant; knowledge is inconsequential; and everyone is carried away down a river of feel-good ignorance and mindless emotion.

When multitudes err, J., and especially when they err en masse over a long period of time, it can become dangerous to question what they feel. There have been many servants of God who have been persecuted, beaten, or even killed for doing so. Therefore, it seems that, historically, God has had to pick His times of visitation carefully, lest he waste His servants' lives in a fruitless attempt to turn His people from their errant course. Perhaps that is why Asa was not moved more by God to oppose the Israelites' attachment to idols. Asa's actions clearly were not determined merely on the basis of what he knew, for he knew perfectly well that worship in "the high places" was wrong. The condition of God's peoples' minds and hearts is always a determining factor in the timing and severity of God's correction. Asa obviously was sensitive to this truth.

Sometimes I feel like doing nothing but to work with the few saints whose hearts God has touched to help me here. It sometimes seems as if the right thing for us to do is to fcease from our efforts to communicate to the children of God with the truths that Jesus has mercifully taught us. I do not feel that way out of any sense of depression or frustration, nor out of a sense of aloof superiority, but simply out of a sense of "it is not time". I am reminded of God's words to Hosea at a point in Israel's history when they had become fully committed to Baal and other deities in addition to their worship of Jehovah. He said to the grieving prophet, "Ephraim [that is, Israel] is joined to his idols; leave him alone." It broke God's heart to reach that conclusion, J., but He saw that it was best that Hosea be silent.

A few years ago, J., the Lord spoke very distinctly to me and told me, "Neither expect nor desire any big thing, but make your work perfect." So, that is what I am striving to do. It may be that all the work that I am doing is for the benefit of another generation. I will be content with that, if that is the plan of God.

One of the most difficult acts anyone will ever perform is the act of spiritually releasing those who are gone away from what is right. This "turning loose" is not a "giving up" on people; nor is it a matter of "throwing them away". Rather, it is submission to the wisdom of God, Who alone knows when and how to speak healing words to His people.

Yes, J., you are right. God's children are thoroughly entangled in the abominable, whorish religion of Christianity, but I am persuaded that there must be many believers in Christianity whose hearts, like Asa's, are perfect. God alone, of course, is able to judge the spiritual condition of any particular saint who is entangled in Christianity and who do not know that it is the Spirit's voice telling him to come out, but I feel that there must be many of God's people whose hearts are acceptable to Him even though they are still partaking of that horrid religion.

I can say one thing, however, with confidence; and I must say this in order that the guilty who read this letter on our web site will not be able to use my answer to you to justify their unfaithfulness to Christ. This is it: There are some saints within Christianity who have been instructed in the truth and know better than to partake of Christianity's dead ceremonies, and know better than to support the doctrines of devils that are taught by Christian ministers, yet who have followed the Devil's course (who "abode not in the truth") and have turned from the path of light to the ways of darkness. These children of God cannot possibly have a perfect heart with God. Their conscience cannot possibly be perfectly at ease, unless, of course, God has turned them completely over to Satan so that they, like he, can no longer feel any pangs of conviction for sin. These cases are rare, J., but must be mentioned.

Other than those rare cases, J., I believe that it would be unwise for us to condemn God's precious children simply because they have not come out of Christianity, even though we know that for them to be in Christianity is not the will of their heavenly Father. And we should be very careful not to be overly zealous in our efforts to persuade them to come out. We might find ourselves in the flesh, merely trying to impose upon the saints the good that we want for them, in our own time and in our own way, as Moses at first tried to rescue the Israelites by his own wisdom and power. God cares about how His people feel. They are "the apple of His eye", regardless of their spiritual condition. He is deeply concerned with their hearts, and like Jacob of old, He will not demand that His children travel more in a day than they "are able to endure" (Gen. 33:14). And He will punish us who know the truth if we dare to demand such a thing of them.

The time is surely coming, J., when God will call His children out of Christianity in such a clear and forceful way that for any child of God to remain behind will be to bring damnation upon himself. But does my weak call for their exodus from that vain religion carry with it such final authority? It seems hard to think so. Surely God's children would experience more of the liberty and love of the Spirit if they understood that Christianity is not the called out ones, but do my frail explanations break any of the mighty yokes of Christian tradition and practice that bind their necks? Obviously not. Not now, at least.

What a wonderful world awaits that generation of saints who hear the call of their Father to "go forth unto Him outside the camp". His word will batter down the walls of the Christian faith to make room for His people to come to Him, but our tiny voice is, as it were, a mere breath opposing a hurricane-force wind. We cannot succeed, but God cannot fail. For the man whom God finally will use to expose Christianity for what it really is, so that the saints can understand it, there will be an enormous and eternal reward from God; but He will choose that man and the time. Without an anointing from God, any attempt to destroy Christianity is an ignoble undertaking, even if that impostor is the Great Whore of John's Revelation. Long ago, Christianity was anointed by God as the place of captivity for His people, and it will require another anointing from God to bring them out. Oh, may God hasten that day!

It is a most painful experience to be separated by the hand of God from the vast majority of His people, as we are. It is not our will to be set apart; it is the work of God, and we are thankful for it. We would not return to Christianity for all the riches of a thousand worlds like this one, though the way we travel be a fearful mystery to our dear brothers and sisters who linger inside those white-washed walls. To be misunderstood by the people we love most is a suffering for Christ that is difficult to bear, though it is an honor to be coveted.

We here feel deeply honored by God, J., to have heard His voice and to have been given the grace to come out of Christianity. Now, our prayer is only to be given the grace to endure both the honor and the pain of that obedience to Christ, and to have His light shine upon our pathway until we reach our home.

I hope this answers your question, J. Keep in touch and may God keep His hand on your life.

Your non-Christian servant,

John David Clark, Sr.

In the short run, I have seen some people benefit from thinking that Jesus was about to come at any moment. They thought more seriously about their future and changed their lives. The silly book, "88 Reasons Why Jesus is coming in '88" frightened two people (whom I know personally) so much that in 1988 they repented of their sins and came to Jesus, and have stuck with him--even after they found out that he was not coming any time soon. It's wonderful how that God takes advantage of men's ignorance and error to stir up the hearts of lost sheep with a longing for home.

In the long run, however, it only makes God's people look foolish before the world for to endorse Christian ministers who warn everybody for years on end that "Jesus could come at any moment." And in time listening and trusting such a message will also wear down the faith of believers.

Satan's ministers have been sounding the call for the soon coming of Jesus since I can remember. Jesus said they would do this as the time of the end approached (Luke 21:8). It is not without a reason that Satan has inspired his ministers to do so. He is preparing the body of Christ, weakened through long years of unfulfilled hope in the immediate coming of their Lord, to receive his chief servant as their lord, in time to come. And for many, I fear, his scheme will succeed.

It is always better that the saints know the truth of a matter than that they should believe a lie. Although we may not yet see the reason or the benefit, it will always pay to stay with the sometimes difficult truth. And though we may not yet see the harm in it, it always hurts to lean on or support a lie.

Yes, Jackie, it is better that God's children think and behave as though Jesus were coming back today, but they need not believe a lie in order to think and behave that way. Jesus is not coming today, or even next year, nor yet the year after that. That is the truth of the matter. But that truth sets us free to do what is really the will of God for us now. Instead of selling our property and hiding in a bunker, as some have foolishly done, we may set our hands to the tasks that God has given to us, confident that if we fulfill our purpose for being called of God, then whenever Jesus comes, we will "be found of him without spot or wrinkle or any such thing."

Yes, the power of God is for those kind of things, and there is precious little of it to be found anywhere in our generation. There were times in the Old Testament when "the word of the Lord was precious in those days" (1Sam. 3:1). In other words, there are times when God just doesn't visit His people the way He does at other times because of their ungodly behavior and general spiritual condition. We are living in a spiritual wasteland. The miraculous has died down so low in meetings everywhere now that it really isn't even expected any more. The power of God is a "used to be" thing now. And there were times like that in the Old Testament.

Look at how Gideon spoke of the miracle-working power of God in his day, when an angel came to him saying, "The Lord is with thee." He said, "Oh my lord, if the Lord be with us, why then is all this befallen us? and where be the miracles which our fathers told us of?" (Jud. 6:13). I believe that God is with us, too. And I am thankful for that. But I have also asked concerning how He could be with us and we be without His power that our fathers told us of. It wasn't intended to be like this. But we can still please God even in times like this, and that's what we are striving to do. There are right things for the God's people to do, even in these times.

But we cannot do well in the Lord if we fret about the condition of the body of Christ. However, I do believe that it is good to be grieved about it, and to pray that God would restore the beauty of His holiness and power to His people. Without it, the normal child of God will feel that something is missing because there is something abnormal about a congregation with little or no miracle power from God. But that is the time in which we are living, so let us make the best of it and be happy and faithful with what God has mercifully given to us.

You don't know about this, but a couple of decades ago, members of the now famous "charismatic movement" dealt with this famine of real power from God in a peculiar way, a way which many are still pursuing. When they entered into the life of the Spirit, they soon became aware of the lack of power among the saints, and they understood rightly that life in the Spirit ought not to be that way, but instead of confessing their need and waiting on God, they just started to claim it. But they did that because they were taught to do that. Some of their trusted ministers persuaded them to believe that they had already been given great power but that they just had not realized it. But to experience it and make it functional, they were taught, they had to confess it. And being the humble children of God, they did. The result was horrible. Some of the most ridiculous doctrines and professions ever heard on earth resulted from their obeying the wrong voices. "When we receive the holy Spirit, we have all power", they began to say, "the same power Jesus had." They were taught to claim to have it and that confessing it would make it real. But claiming a false gift makes one like "a cloud without water", according to Solomon. And there were in the heyday of the PTL club and the charismatic movement a lot of waterless clouds floating across this land. Satan had once again deceived God's children to behave foolishly and they themselves unwittingly made a mockery of the wonderful work of Jesus in their lives.

Save us, O God, from that kind of foolishness.

JDC

May God bless you this morning, brother Gary!

Yes, I absolutely do believe in the election, foreordination, and predestination as the Bible states in Romans 8:28-33 & 11:4-7. There is no question at all that the saints' names were written in the Lamb's Book of Life from the foundation of the world (Rev. 17:8) and that faithful saints are not among those who were "made to be taken and destroyed" (2Pet. 2:12).

Now, my friend, do you believe in the free-will and hope of eternal life provided for all people as is found in John 3:16-17, 2 Peter 3:9, 1Jn. 2:2, and Revelation 22:17?

John

Thanks, Sandy, for your question. It is certainly relevant to much of what we have been hearing for many months now.

The new millennium will begin in the year 2001. The year 2000 is the beginning of the ignorant man's millennium. You may safely forget about it. But Jesus will be sent back to rule on earth for a thousand years, and when he sets up his kingdom, I believe it will be at the beginning of the sixth thousanth year (the "sixth day", so to speak) of human history. But I do not trust the calendar that exists. What is the real date? Who knows? The Jews say it is about 5,700+, so Jesus's second coming may still be a couple hundred years away. Whenever that may occur, it is unrelated to the year 2000, so far as we know. The main thing is to stay filled with the holy Ghost and be ready to serve God now, before Jesus returns. He won't be here in the year 2000, nor will he return any time soon thereafter. We've got work to do. Let's get to it!

JDC

There is no doubt in my mind that the two women were Hebrews. It was their love for Jehovah, and their fear of His wrath, that caused them to disobey Pharaoh. Egyptians did not have that kind of faith in God.

Secondly, the names are Hebrew. It appears that Shiphrah comes from Hebrew root that means "beautiful", and Puah means something like "glittering" or "brilliant". But the point is that the names are thoroughly Hebrew.

They were not Egyptians.

John

God has blessed the mothers of young children here to be able to stay at home with their children. Paul told Timothy that he wanted the younger women to marry, to bear children, guide the house, and to give no occasion for the devil to reproach the way of the Lord (1Tim. 5:14). If a woman feels that she must work outside the home, there is something out of order in her life. That "something" may not be her fault especially, such as having a lazy husband who refuses to work. Still, something is not as it should be if a young mother feels obligated to leave the children in others' care while she works for money at a public job.

If a young mother does not even want to stay at home with the children she has brought into the world, there is something wrong in her spirit. Her children need her direction. Why would she not earnestly desire to help them understand life as it should be understood?

Thanks for another question. It is a question provoked by Christianity's bizarre trinity doctrine; the phrase "denying Jesus's deity" is a muddled Christian phrase which has no inherent meaning. It is one of those senseless phrases from Christianity designed by Satan to intimidate, to manipulate, and to confuse. I am a little surprised that you, Jackie, would even be asking it, but I will do my best to give you a clear and unequivocal answer. Let me know if I do not make myself clear.

Let me begin by asking you a question. Did Jesus deny his own deity by saying that he is "the beginning of the creation of God" in Revelation Chapter 3? Or did he deny his deity by saying that the Father gave him life, in John 5? Of course not. Then, how can we be guilty of denying Jesus's deity by agreeing with his own words? Christians unwisely claim that if Jesus was created, that is, if he had a beginning, then he cannot be a Divine Being. In their haste to defend their trinitarian faith, Christians often overlook the obvious fact that in creating His Son, Jehovah created a divine being. Or do Christians dare to deny the ability of the Almighty to create a Divine Being? The principal way that men deny the deity of Christ Jesus is in refusing to submit to him. It is sin to refuse to believe God's truth and obey it. Christianity is, above all things on earth, guilty of that crime. For us to reject the Christian doctrine of the trinity, which we all do who meet in my home, is not to deny that Jesus is God; it is only to deny that there is no God above him, as the Christian doctrine of the trinity does.

The truth is, as Jesus himself plainly stated, that the Father is greater than the Son, and that the Father gave life to the Son. Jesus's very life is dependent on the Father's grace and mercy, just as our lives are dependent upon the grace of Jesus, His Son. To deny that is heresy. And there is no better reason than that for all of God's children everywhere to abandon Christianity completely and forever. Leaving Christianity behind, Jackie, includes forsaking the vain search for truth by reading Christian books and listening to Christian teachers. They do not know the truth and are unable to lead you to it. We don't have time to waste by digging for water in dry ground.

Your Servant in Christ:

JDC

I knew the question did not come from you. No one has those kinds of questions unless he has been in contact with a Christian. The spirit behind it is at enmity with the Spirit of love and truth. Having endured three years in a Christian seminary, I can recognize their language a mile away. Besides, it has a certain odor to it.

John

God is manifested in the flesh every time someone obeys the Spirit, because that is His nature being displayed. That's what Jesus meant when he spoke these words to his disciples during the Last Supper in John's gospel, "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father." He was not saying that he was God Himself in person. He was saying that he was the perfect reflection of the will and nature of God. Earlier in his ministry, he had told people that "No man hath seen God at any time." If Jesus thought that he were God, he could not have said that, because people were looking at him while he was saying those words.

Jesus is referred to as being God several times in the Bible. For the reasons that this is done, you can read the Pioneer Tract Society tracts that deal with that issue: "Is Jesus God?", "The Father and the Son", and a few others. If you don't already have them, we will mail them to you free of charge.

Take Care and thanks for the question.

JDC

Thank you for your questions. I can see by them that you are really thinking about what you are reading. Very Good!. There probably is a reason for those animals to have been three years old, but I have never noticed a place in the Bible that tells us why. Other animals used in sacrifice were required to be one or two years old. No reasons were given there, either. The people, such as Abraham, Moses, etc., who performed the sacrifices probably had an understanding as to why specific ages were required for certain sacrifices, but then they lived with animals all their lives and knew them better (at what ages those animals were good for what purposes, etc.).

Secondly, Adam's age, 930 years, was counted from the time he was created. It is interesting that Adam was created "with age"; that is, he was not created a baby and then grew up. If geologists would consider that, they could stop debating the age of the earth. The earth was created "fully grown" as was Adam. Therefore, the earth appears to have age that it never "experienced"!

Take care and stay in touch. Your son Brandon cannot know what knowing the OT will do for him in the years to come. I hope he stays interested, too.

John

I am glad that you took the time to write. There's no reason to use sarcasm, however, and I hope that in the future we can avoid that typically Christian tactic of discrediting another's position. I was not "dancing around" anything with my answer. We have learned the truth of Paul's assertion that, because we have such a precious hope, we "use great plainness of speech." Part of the proof of that is the fact that in reading my previous response, you understood, in a general way, what was being said. You wrote that "it is obvious that you believe in order to be saved, you must speak in tongues." This summation of my position, however, is not quite right. You failed to completely grasp my meaning--not because I am "dancing" around the issue but because your thoughts have been influenced by 20th century Christianity (Xty). Millions in Xty teach, as you apparently do, that conversion is salvation--in spite of what the Bible teaches to the contrary (e.g. Rom. 13:11). Christians of the 20th century have invented the doctrine that states that if a person is converted, then he is "saved", even though there is not one instance of such a testimony in the Bible. Where does Paul ever boast of "the day I got saved"? I often have to correct the questions that Christians ask so that I can give them the answer they really want, so this is not intended as an insult to you personally. What you meant to say is that "it is obvious that you believe in order to be born again, you must speak in tongues." Yes, that is exactly what I believe concerning the new birth and speaking in tongues. But salvation is another issue. If those who receive the holy Ghost (with the evidence of speaking in tongues) obey the Spirit AFTER they receive it, then they will receive the reward of salvation when Jesus comes. That reward, however, is only for the faithful children of God. Disobedient saints will not be saved in the end, but will be rejected by the Father and "given their portion with the hypocrites and unbelievers."

Secondly, the fact that the holy Spirit is referred to as a wind in several other places in the Bible is irrelevant to your point. It neither confirms nor denies the truth that I am teaching, but it does lend support in a general way to my contention that Jesus was telling Nicodemus something about receiving the Spirit. With reference to John 3:8, you say that "contextually . . . Jesus said this in regards to the Pharisees' lack of understanding". You miss the point here altogether. Jesus said those words, with reference to everybody's lack of understanding, not just theirs. He was revealing a mystery hidden from the foundation of the world; he was not discussing with Nicodemus the mental state of the Pharisees.

By the way, you are also mistaken to say that "Before we are born of the Spirit, our direction is guided by our own will." The truth is that we are guided by God to the new birth; otherwise, we would never find it. Our wills would keep us from Jesus, not take us to him. Our wills guide us as long as we feel no conviction for sin and live in sin, but God's will brings us to Him. I suspect that you already understand that, but that is not what you said. Be careful in saying such things; someone could easily misunderstand what you mean.

Finally, I have never taught that speaking in tongues is the "exclusive manifestation" of the Spirit. And it is completely incomprehensible to me how you could say that John 3:8 is taken out of context when it is used with reference to Spirit speaking through someone. Most people would agree with you in using 1Cor. 12:30 to show that some in the body do not speak in tongues, but none of you seem to notice that that whole chapter is dealing with "gifts" of the Spirit. My guess is that you refer to speaking in tongues when receiving the holy Ghost baptism as one of these gifts mentioned in that chapter, when simple experience shows clearly that the "stammering lips and another tongue" which comes with the holy Ghost is clearly NOT the "gift of diverse tongues" Paul talks about in that chapter.

If it is truly your intention not to promote dissension within the body of Christ, then stop teaching God's children that Christians without the holy Ghost baptism are their brothers and sisters. That is the most divisive doctrine that Satan has ever persuaded God's children to believe.

Your Servant In Christ,

John David Clark, Sr.

Thanks for the questions. They are good ones. As for the sabbath day, yes, God did make a change and "take the blessing off that day" as you said it. Did you know that there were several sabbaths under the Old Covenant besides the weekly sabbath? If my memory of the Old Covenant feasts serves me rightly, I believe it was possible to have as many as 59 or 60 sabbath days each year. Beyond that, there was a sabbath year every seven years. Then, there was the Year of Jubilee, every fifty years. All these sabbaths were ordained by God and were holy. The rules for the weekly sabbaths applied to all the others. The sabbaths of the Law pointed to something, Magic; they were just shadows of the work and majesty of Jesus Christ. Paul warned the body of Christ not to yield to the demands of some men who demanded that the saints observe the sabbaths and holy days of the Old Covenant, as well as the dietary commandments of the Law. He wrote:

"Let no man judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days, which are a shadow of things to come. . . . Let no man beguile you of your reward. . . ."

We are free from physical circumcision, observance of sabbath days, and all the other requirements of the Law, Magic, because the Son of God in an earthly body went through those things for us . . . and then nailed that body to the cross. Praise God! We are liberated by Jesus to "walk in the newness of life" and are given great liberty from dead ceremonies!

Now, as for the scriptural basis for changing the sabbath day to Sunday, there is none. Christianity's claim that God made the first day of the week holy instead of the seventh day of the Old Covenant is nonsense. God never did that. Such a doctrine betrays an ignorance on the part of Christians concerning what type of covenant this is. It is not in the flesh, with carnal baptisms, communion suppers, robes for worship, special days of the week, and so forth. It is a covenant of Spirit and truth. What God did, Magic, is to change the Law of symbols to a Law of Spirit and life. And that life in the Spirit excludes the possibility that any day is holier than another. The only thing on earth that is holy now is any person who has been sanctified by the holy Spirit of God. Everything else is carnal.

I do not know of any "7th day pentecostals". I didn't even know there were any "7th day baptists", but I am not surprised.

Lastly, when a person is born again, he receives God's Spirit. When the Spirit comes in, it moves the recipient to speak in tongues. This is called by Jesus, Paul, and Peter, the baptism of the holy Ghost. Without the holy Ghost, said Paul, a person does not belong to God. So, to answer your question, YES, if a person has not been moved by the Spirit to speak in tongues (or to have stammering lips -- Isaiah 28:11-12), he does not have the Spirit and will not be saved in the end.

But I want to add this caution. Those with the baptism of the holy Ghost must obey the Spirit or they, too, will be lost in the end. It is not they who start the race, but those who successfully finish it, who will be the Bride of Christ.

Thanks again for the questions. I hope this clears some things up for you.

Pastor John

The "not being able to renew them to repentance" situation does not apply in your case at all. You never finished your repentance to start with, so you have nothing to which to "be renewed".

You might want to read the section of Hebrews 6:4-6 that deals with the issue of God refusing to grant repentance to a man. You will see clearly that in order for someone to be rejected by God when he repents, he must first be born of the Spirit--but more than that, he must also (1) have the knowledge of God and (2) have experienced the real power of God. There are many places in the Bible in which God's children are encouraged to come to God if they have gone astray, and that they will receive mercy if we do so. Jesus' parable of the Prodigal Son is just one of many such places.

It may sound a little strange at first to some people, but it is true that one has to qualify to be a Judas, with no hope of forgiveness. Not many of the followers of Christ ever grow close enough to him to betray him. A man would have to be very close to Jesus in order to betray him and be damned by the Father. We know from what Jesus said that the "unpardonable sin" is blasphemy of the holy Ghost" (Mk. 3:28-29). But considering Hebrews 6:4-6, we have to say that only those with the holy Ghost can blaspheme it. And you are not there yet.

My advice to you is to be very thankful that God will forgive you for what you have done and to take advantage of the precious opportunity presented to you now. Just set your sights on doing the will of God and keep going this time with all your heart, until you meet Jesus face-to-face in peace.

Your Servant in Christ,

John David Clark, Sr.

It is good for you that this sister in the Lord is talking to you. I hope that it will be good for her. I am ignorant as to the COG of Prophecy's stance on the necesstity of the baptism of the holy Ghost. In general, all penetcostal groups empasize the need of the Spirit much less than the pentecostals of previous generations, but i have never heard what that sect's stance is. Could she get you some info on that sometime? I'd like to find out.

The closest thing in the NT to "salvation being a gift" is Eph. 2:8, taken out of context. My tract on The Way of Grace answers that Christian misinterpretation of Scripture.

The gift of God is the holy Ghost. Acts 2:38, (8:20 in context), 10:45, 11:17; Rom. 6:23 (with Rom. 8:10b).

I wouldn't push it too much with her about doctrine, though. That is not what will win her to the right way. She has never experienced being loved by someone who doesn't agree with her doctrine. She has probably had few if any examples of loving others who teach differently. If she knows that you completely disagree with what she has been taught, you are in a wonderful position to teach her what the real love of God is like. Surprise her with love. If that doesn't capture her heart, she isn't after the real thing. Let her decide when she is ready to pursue more truth; just make yourself as available as possible. God's children cannot take much at one time. They are starving just to be cared about.

John

Thanks for the question. It is a good one, the answer for which a surprising number of people do not understand. I have even met ministers who teach that the holy Spirit is different from the holy Ghost, so there is confusion in some quarters concerning this.

The short answer to your question is YES. The holy Spirit and the holy Ghost are exactly the same. The Greek word, pneuma is translated both as "ghost" and "spirit".

My father, George C. Clark, taught me a wonderfully simple way to show this. He had me to read what the writers of the four gospels said about the dove coming from heaven upon Jesus at his baptism in the Jordan River. What I found there was an eye opener. Matthew (3:16) says that the dove was the "Spirit of God"; Mark (1:10) and John (1:32) say that the dove was "the Spirit". Luke (3:22) says that the dove was "the holy Ghost".

Now, Sheila, unless there were a flock of birds that descended on Jesus at his baptism, we have to say that the "Spirit of God" that Matthew saw was "the Spirit" that Mark and John saw, and that Luke saw the same thing and called it "the holy Ghost".

Paul (Eph. 4:4) taught God's children that there is only one Spirit, Sheila. It is called by many different, descriptive names, but there is only one Spirit that is holy because there is only one God.

For more detail on this, send for our free gospel tract titled, "The Spirit of Christ".

Thanks again for your question, and keep in touch!

Pastor John

You would have to ask them what they mean by "standing on the Word", but if they mean standing on the Bible, they are way off the mark. Contrary to what Christians believe, the Bible is not the word of God. If the Bible were the Word of God, wouldn't the Bible itself say so? Instead, what do we find in the Bible about the Word?

We find that the Word of God is alive (Hebrews 10); we find that the Word of God will return to earth, riding a white horse (Revelation 19); we find that the Word of God is God and was in the beginning with God (John 1). So, if the Bible were the Word of God, it is God, and it will descend from heaven someday, riding a white horse.

Resorting to such meaningless cliches as "standing on the Word" is a gimmick to which Christians resort when they cannot defend their doctrines. It is intended to intimidate you so that you will think they are defending the faith of Christ, when in fact they ae hiding from the truth behind such dead phrases.

I wouldn't push them on this issue, though. There are more important matters we want to concentrate on. There is much good that we might be able to accomplish if we walk in love and patience toward "those who oppose themselves". Try to find some point of agreement with them, emphasize that, and then wait for them to ask for your testimony. It is usually useless to try to reason with Christians because they have been taught to flee behind their cliches when the light begins to expose the errors of their religion. So, just be kind and gentle with them as you confess the truth. They are afraid of the truth. Don't scare them with it. They will run and hide if you do.

Paul said, "Let nothing be done through strife or vain glory." These words have helped me many times over the years and have convicted me to search my own reasons for whatever I say and do. So, never enter into a conversation with Christians when the spirit of strife is present, as it often is with them, and never present to them any truth just to show them how much knowledge of God you possess. If you obey the Spirit, you are obeying the Word that they claim to hold in their hand. Let's just be satisfied with doing that.

For a full explanation of what the Bible says about the Word of God, send for my little book, "Is the Bible the Word of God?" I think it will be an eye opener. Thanks for your question.

Brother John

Thanks for your question. It is one that many have asked, after they first learn that the baptism of the holy Ghost is the new birth. Let me say first of all that the Bible says nowhere that anyone MUST speak in tongues at all, and I do not say that, either. I will say, however, that every person that is born of the Spirit does speak in tongues when that new birth takes place. This is what Jesus taught Nicodemus in John 3. The voice of the Spirit is heard every time a person is born of the Spirit.

What MUST happen is that men must repent of sin (Acts 17:30) and be born again (Jn. 3:7). These things must happen, if a person hopes to be saved in the end. The issue, then, is what is repentance? And what is the experience of new birth?

To make things short, let me say, with Solomon, that repentance is to confess and to forsake one's sins. Only by confessing and forsaking sin will a man find mercy and forgiveness from God (Prov. 28:13). A man who continues to sin after he has confessed to sinning has not repented; he has only bragged, or possibly complained, about his lifestyle.

Now, what is the new birth? It is receiving the holy Ghost, as the disciples did on the day of Pentecost. That is the day that the disciples were born again. Their experience was called by Jesus the baptism of the holy Ghost (Acts 1:5), and Paul taught that we are baptized by the holy Ghost into the body of Christ (1Cor. 12:13). Peter taught that this baptism, which came as a result of the resurrection of Jesus, is the baptism that saves us (1 Pet. 3:21). Paul again taught that the baptism of the holy Ghost is our means into Christ (Gal. 3:27), and that we are buried with Christ by this heaven-sent baptism (Col. 2:12). His death reconciles us to God only if we are baptized by the holy Ghost into his death (Rom. 6:3). These last few scriptures are often misunderstood as referring to Christian (that is, a form of water) baptism. But no water baptism will put you into Christ, bury you with him, or make you a partaker of his death. Only the baptism Jesus gives will do those things.

Bob, there is no question, biblically speaking, as to the fact that the holy Ghost baptism is the experience of new birth. It is mind boggling that pentecostal people have historically been so blind to this simple truth, and have taught instead that a person must be born again before God would baptize him with the holy Ghost. The fact of the Spirit's baptism being the new birth being established, then, means that the only remaining issue is the one that you bring up with your good question; to wit, does everyone who receives the holy Ghost speak in tongues (or, as Isaiah prophesied, have "stammering lips") when he receives it? The answer is yes. "It is the Spirit", wrote John, "that bears witness, because the Spirit is truth" (1 Jn. 5:6b).

A man's own testimony that he is born again is not sufficient. Scriptures from both the Old and New Testaments (including Jesus's own words in John 8:17-18) show that in God's kingdom, there must be two witnesses to make something certain. Man's witness, standing alone, is untrustworthy. Solomon observed that every man will proclaim his own goodness (Prov. 20:6), but it is the second witness, the witness of God, that establishes anything in His kingdom. "If we receive the witness of man," said John, "the witness of God is greater" (1 Jn. 5:9). This is what speaking in tongues, or stammering lips is: the witness of God that you have received His real holy Spirit.

Bob, rather than rewrite what I have written many time before on this subject, let me encourage you to send for our free "New Birth Set" of ten tracts which explain the truth concerning the new birth from every conceivable angle. Your question concerning tongues will be answered in full with these ten tracts. There will be many Old and New Testament references for you to study, and Jesus's own description of the new birth to Nicodemus will also be explained.

Thanks for your question. I hope my answer makes the issue more understandable for a lot of people.

Your Servant in Christ,

Pastor John

Another backslidden woman with the Spirit was convicted by the Lord and wanted to be clean again. She came to my father, who was not holding any meetings at that time. He talked with her and encouraged her to keep seeking God. So, under a heavy conviction, she went to a meeting. It was either at the Church of God denomination or another Pentecostal Holiness place. She was so eager to repent and be cleansed that when the minister gave the "altar call", she ran--not walked--to the front. And as soon as she fell down on her knees the holy Ghost began to speak through her, forgiving and comforting her!! Guess what happened next. The people there, including the minister, REBUKED HER, saying it was a demon speaking through her. Why? Because according to their doctrine, she was an unclean vessel, and the real holy Ghost wouldn't be in there yet. They told her she had to "get saved and sanctified" again before the real holy Ghost would come in.

Amy, these folks were in the blasphemer's neighborhood because of that teaching. As it was, they were merely foolish. Their reproof made her so confused! She expected them to be happy for her, but they rejected the work of God in order to maintain their own ways. Their "get saved and sanctified" doctrine is false, and their "holy Ghost won't dwell in an unclean temple" is false. The Lord was using that poor repentant sister to show them that, but they rejected his wonderful work and justified themselves instead.

Then, there was the lady visiting a friend at Veteran's Hospital in Durham who fell under conviction as Earl, Mike, and I ministered to her friend with some music. "Her tears ran down her face, and she said, "I want to get back right with God. I want the holy Ghost again!"
I said, "If you ever had it, you still do."
"No, no," she answered. "I mean the real holy Ghost , with speaking in tongues."
"It's still there."
"No," she said, "I'm backslidden. The holy Ghost won't dwell in an unclean temple"
"You just lift up your hands right now," I told her, "And let the Lord bless you." I laid hands on her head and prayed, and she began to weep and speak in tongues.
"I didn't think the Lord would do this!" She said. "I thought I had to get saved and sanctified all over again!"
She was so happy!

And there was also old Sister Weaver's daughter, Louise. She was devoted to that old saint, and spent a great deal of time ministering to her needs. For years she had been told by the Church of God people that she no longer had the Spirit because she wasn't attending their services any more or living as they thought she should live. I was around her often enough to know that she was not living an immoral life. One day, Amy, as I and Brother Earl Pittman walked into Sister Weaver's house for a visit, Louise was standing in the kitchen, and I asked her, "Louise, did you ever receive the holy Ghost?"
"Yes," she answered. "I used to have the holy Ghost."
"If you ever had it, Louise," I replied, "you still do."
Immediately, tears welled up in her eyes, and she said with great relief and the sweetest humility, "You can feel it, can't you?" In other words, she had felt the holy Ghost inside of her all along and knew it was there, but the doctrine she had been taught prevented her from believing that truth and receiving the help that Jesus wanted to give her. To have somebody in whom she had confidence in the Lord to tell her that the Spirit was still there was an incredible relief to her soul. The sight of her tears and the enormous relief my words gave to her that day still bless my soul whenever I think of it. Praise God! The truth enables us to do good to the children of God. We can relieve the burdens of false doctrines that Christian ministers unwisely lay on their backs!

The phrase, "the holy Ghost won't dwell in an unclean temple" is found nowhere in the Bible. But several times in the Mormon bible we find the phrase, "the holy Spirit will not dwell in an unholy temple." That is saying the same thing in different words, and it is still a lie.

From what I have seen, not only in the stories related above, but in other cases as well, is that it makes people harsh and cold to those who are backslidden to believe that the Spirit forsakes the person who stumbles into sin and removes them from membership in God's family. I have seen this attitude face to face. It is arrogant and hateful toward those who are "unclean". And how foolish that is! Paul said (Gal. 6:1) that we should be very gentle toward those who err, "considering yourself, lest thou also be tempted."

Mark 16 does belong in the Bible. An angel visited Uncle Joe in the night some years back and repeated those words exactly as found in the Bible--twice. Those words of Jesus give some men serious theological problems, but only because they would rather condemn the text than to confess that God's people have wandered far from the truth and power of God. Some of the earliest Greek manuscripts of the New Testament do not have the ending of Mark that is in our Bible. Some others do. But those words are true, and they confront the body of Christ with a challenge, as few other scriptures do, to lay hold of the promises of God. From my days in a Christian (Baptist) Seminary, over twenty years ago now, I learned that theologians often choose to condemn the Bible rather than to repent when brought face to face with the power of God. In my Systematic Theology class, one of the required texts, written by the famous Christian theologian Paul Tillich, held that the authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were demonically inspired to even say that Jesus performed miracles. This is the usual course taken by the "wise and the prudent", marching blindly into eternal death while God reveals His wonderful gospel to those who humble themselves before Him as "babes".

I suspect that very early in the development of Christianity, some of its leaders recognized that these verses brought into question the legitimacy of their ecclesiastical religion, and so they purposefully omitted them from the text, thus beginning the process of questioning the legitimacy of Mark 16. But that is only a suspicion. I do know that Christians managed to inject false doctrine into their translations of the Scriptures in several places, some of them being the following:

Acts 19:37, where King James translators replaced the Greek word for "temple" with "church".

Phip. 2:6, where they contorted the simple and clear meaning of the Greek to make it appear that Paul taught just the opposite of what he actually was saying. They did this in order to promote their Trinity doctrine, of which Paul knew nothing. (See my study on "The Influence of Trinitarian Doctrine on Translations of the Bible.")

1 Jn 5:7-8, where an unknown Christian editor a few hundred years ago thought we would understand his doctrine of the Trinity better if he added a verse or two to what John originally wrote. Of course, he did not sign his name to that addition, hoping that the readers would assume that John wrote those few strange remarks.

Lastly, one can read virtually any English version of the New Testament and see INTENTIONAL MISTRANSLATION of the parts that have to do with the Spirit. My Study of the Influence of The Doctrine of the Trinity on Translations of the Bible proves that point beyond any possibility of doubt.

So, the handling of the Scriptures has not been perfect, even though I think it is safe to say that the extant ancient Greek texts agree with one another about 95 % of the time. The trouble spots are few, and for that we can be very thankful.

When I read the passages of the Bible which tell of the power and glory and gifts of the earliest believers, such as mark 16, I know that we are far from what God has always intended for followers of Christ Jesus. And the reason that the power of God is not much seen among the saints now is that there is sin in the camp. Therefore, the Bible--if we will just believe it--will compel us to repent and seek God so that He will show us His favor again. That is a much better response to the Scriptures which speak of his power than to condemn the Scriptures as being of man and then to continue going down the wrong road.

There are some places in this country where handling snakes is a big part of their gatherings. Occasionally they receive media attention, especially if someone is bitten and dies. The media, however, don't seem to be much interested when poisonous snakes are handled with no harm. But that is ok, too. They are just serving God's people in their own worldly role.

I have no complaint concerning those who handle snakes, but I do wish that with that "sign" there would be other signs manifested as well. I do not take the path of criticizing them for handling snakes. I would rather pray that God would increase the faith and understanding of those people so that they would be able to show the world more of God's power, in healings and miracles and "mighty signs and wonders". My father said back in the early days of pentecost in this country (early twentieth century), if God wanted a snake to be handled in an assembly meeting, He would send one into the meeting. He said he had seen that done. In one instance which he related to me, a poisonous snake caused a little disturbance in a tent meeting by crawling up the aisle to the pulpit, but the preacher went and picked him up and laid him like a bookmark in his Bible. The Bible was open to Mark 16, and the preacher had to turn the snake over to finish reading the part that said "and they shall take up serpents". Afterward, my father told me, the minister took the snake and dropped him over the curtain in back of the tent and went on with the meeting.

I think God's people need to concentrate on obeying the commandments of God and forget about inspecting the sometimes flawed efforts of the few who dare to believe what the Bible says God can do and will do among His people. If God sends me a snake to take up, then He will give me the faith and power to handle it without suffering harm. Let's just stay willing to do whatever the Spirit leads us to do.

Thanks for the question.

Pastor John

In the main, I suppose that people keep the Sunday sabbath because it is an historical element of our Christian culture. You will probably receive as many answers from individuals as to why they observe a sabbath as you can bear to hear, but in the main, it is just a custom to which people in Western culture have grown accustomed, and expect even if they are not religious. Personally, I like it. It gives people a chance to relax, if they want to, or repair...but if they repair something they have to work...but then, maybe working on repairing something is HOW they relax! But then, the commandment was not to relax on the Sabbath, but to rest, so even if you relax by working you can't do that because working is working even if you're relaxing by working, and neither of them is resting. Do you suppose that one could rest by working, or maybe, to be technical, rest by relaxing while you worked? Still God's original commandment for the Saturday sabbath, which Christians have historically taken to apply to the Sunday sabbath they invented was to do no work, so I suppose that all repair work is forbidden because work is work, even if working is how you relax, and relaxing is how you rest.

Man, things sure can get complicated when you add a ceremony here or there.

Pastor John

PS By the way, I learned when I went to Israel that Friday was a sabbath for the Arabs, Saturday for the Jews, and Sunday for the Christians. Now if I had a construction crew over there, as some no doubt did, made up of Arabs, Jews, and Christians, and I wanted them to work while I was resting . oh, forget it.

All of the utensils made for use inside the tabernacle or temple were of gold or silver. Brass was used on the outside. There were probably several kinds of utensils never mentioned, but still used in the temple service. It does say that the censers used in Solomon's temple were of pure gold (1Kings 7:50), and they would have been the same in Moses' tabernacle, if they were used inside the temple. You'll notice that in the Great Wilderness Rebellion, the rebels were commanded to burn incense at the Brass altar outside the tabernacle, using brass censers. Incense from the little golden altar inside the tabernacle would have been offered to God in golden censers.

Hebrews 9:4 in the KJV is calling the golden altar itself the "golden censer", and the wording in Hebrews 9:4 makes it sound as if the golden altar belonged inside the Most Holy Room, even though it sat right outside the vail. It actually did belong inside the Most Holy Place, but if it had been put in there, then the priests could not burn incense on it every evening and morning as God commanded, because they were forbidden to go in there. So, it was placed just outside, as close to the Most Holy as it could be. Read that verse in another modern version and it will say golden altar, not golden censer. Hope that helps.

John

Good questions. Let me take them one at at time.

First, it is possible for a perfectly upright person to turn away from or to "fall away from" the grace of God. Ezekiel 28:15 says that Satan was perfect in his ways when he was created, but iniquity was later found in him. Jesus says that the devil is the "father of lies", but he was not created a liar. Peter mentions that God's people need to be constantly reminded of what they already know, "though ye be established in the present truth". And the apostles were continually reminding the saints of the gospel they already believed "lest ye fall from your own steadfastness." So, being prefect in Christ does not mean "incapable of going astray"; it means "unlikely to go astray".

Secondly, Yes, God does tempt us with good. He tempted Abraham, according to Genesis 22:1. When James wrote that "God tempteth no man", the context of that verse implies that God doesn't tempt anyone to do evil. This is the verse: "Let no man say when he is tempted, `I am tempted by God'. For God cannot be tempted with evil; neither tempteth He any man. But every man is tempted [to do evil] when he is drawn away by his own lust, and enticed" (James 1:13-14).

Third, it is a popularly held Christian myth that God turned down Cain's offering in Genesis 4 because he offered a sacrifice that did not contain blood. But that is not the case. As the saying goes, "You can't squeeze blood out of a turnip." Cain was a farmer, "a tiller of the soil". He brought to God what he had, just as Abel, a shepherd, brought to God what he had.

The reason God rejected Cain is suggested by God Himself in Genesis 4:7. "If you do well, shall you know be accepted?" The apostle John wrote of Cain and Abel, too. He said that Cain hated Abel "because his own works were evil" (1 Jn. 3:12).

Some people refer to a scripture in Hebrews (9:22) as evidence that Cain's offering was rejected because it was bloodless. That verse says that "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin." And that verse is true. But the remission of sin is a different issue. God commanded and accepted many offerings under the Law of Moses that did not contain blood.

The mixture of Hebrews 9:22 with the issue of God's reject of Cain's offering is what I call Sunday School theology. And that can be deadly. We need to be careful how we put scriptures together. One man told me that Jesus commanded us all to suicide. And the man used nothing but Scripture to prove it. Are you ready? Here goes:

Verse #1: "Judas . . . went and hanged himself." (Mt. 27:5)
Verse #2: "Then said Jesus . . . `Go, and do thou likewise.'" (Lk. 10:37)

Be careful how you put scriptures together, Jason. Thanks for the questions.

You are referring to the verses from James 5:14-15. "Is any sick among you? Let him call for the elders of the congregation, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord, and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up. And if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him."

In order to understand some verses in the Bible, we have to have some other truth with which to work. We know that there are no ceremonies in the "new and living way" that Jesus purchased for us by his suffering, death, and resurrection. This covenant is in Spirit and in truth (Jn. 4), not in ceremonial form.

We also know that it is NOT required by God that physical oil be poured on those who are sick before they can be healed. Jesus himself didn't do that, nor his apostles. And men anointed by God since then have not done that either. I can also remember a story that my father told me concerning this that may help.

Early in his ministry, he and his fellow evangelist, and older holiness preacher, always carried with them little bottles of oil to anoint the heads of those whom they healed as they traveled from meeting to meeting across the country. In Henderson, NC, as always happens, there was a group of doubters who wondered why the people who came up for healing often fell down or trembled under the power of God. The police came and checked out the area around the podium for electrical wiring to see if the people were being shocked by some secret switch underneath. Later, they returned and confiscated my father's belt! You see, at that time he had a habit of holding his belt, and someone apparently told the police that he was using a foreign substance that affected people. Last of all, the police came and confiscated his little bottle of oil to have it analyzed. This presented a problem for my father, because of his understanding of James 5:14-15.

"What are we going to do now?" he asked the older minister. His response was simple. "We're going to preach the gospel." And so they did. And my father told me that as they continued their work in Christ, just as many people were healed without the oil as had been healed with it. Consequently, he never went to the police for ask for his oil back and never went to buy any more of it. He found out that the oil was irrelevant to healing.

What this means, Jackie, is that James was doing one of these two things, and I do not know which it was.

1. James was speaking spiritually, and the "oil" referred to is the anointing of the Spirit.
2. James was referring to a tradition of the Jews that had developed since the days of Jesus.

Thanks, Jackie. That's the best I can do with your question. If anyone who reads this response to Jackie's question has any further insight from the Lord concerning James 5:14-15, please send it to us.

Pastor John

Thanks for your good question. It is one that God's children everywhere would do well to ask and to consider. In this New Covenant, as you know, the only way to be sanctified is for God to sanctify us. This is true because the material used for sanctifying people in this new Covenant is from heaven: the spiritual "blood of Christ", which is the holy Ghost. There is absolutely nothing anyone can do to himself that will sanctify him in this New Covenant. But Jesus was born and lived under the Law of Moses (Gal. 4:4), a law which used earthly material in its sanctifying process. When God ordained a man to do so, therefore, they could both sanctify themselves and others--as well as things, such as the altar and temple, etc.. Among the very many Old Testament examples of humans using earthly material to sanctify someone or something are these:

Humans sanctifying themselves: Ex. 19:22

Humans sanctifying other humans: Ex. 13:2; 19:14

Humans sanctifying things: Ex. 40:10

You can use a concordance to see for yourself that this was a typical practice under the Mosaic Law. Of course, no ceremony of sanctification in the Old Testament was recognized in heaven as legitimate unless God had ordained that particular man (or men) to sanctify that particular person(s) or thing(s).

The people of Israel as a whole, under the Law, could sanctify themselves before receiving a promised blessing from God, such as we see in the Wilderness Wanderings (Num. 11:8) before God rained the quail on those hungry pilgrims in the desert. But because no rite of sanctification was legitimate unless God commanded it to be done, in a sense, God was still the Sanctifier, using men and earthly matter to carry out His plan.

Jesus sanctified himself by submitting to the Law under which he was born. This was a normal thing under that Law. We are not given any precise details of anything special Jesus did to sanctify himself other than simply to maintain his ceremonial purity as prescribed by the Law. In John 17:19, he could have said, "I always obey the Law" instead of "I sanctify myself" and it would have amounted to the same thing. Observing the Law's rites would certainly have kept him sanctified according to the Law.

At the same time, Jesus was the forerunner of a new race. He is the "second Adam" that Paul mentions in 1Corinthians 15. That new man was sanctified by a new substance, not found on earth. Jesus said that the Father sanctified him (Jn. 10:36). This means far more than that the Father used the earthly means of the Law to sanctify him. This was a new thing. It was a sanctification no man had ever had before: the baptism of the holy Ghost, a baptism in spirit which Jesus promised to all who believed on him (Jn. 7:39).

So, yes, Donna, Jesus did sanctify himself, but if we will notice what Jesus also said in that verse, it can teach us much. He said that he sanctified himself "for their sakes". In other words, Jesus submitted to the Law for the sake of those who believed in him. He himself, being already sanctified by the father at the Jordan River, was completely sanctified in his heart, where it really matters. He kept the Law to bring it to an end, so that we no longer have to observe its ceremonies, trusting in a ritual to make us clean before God. Now, for all men everywhere, nothing but the sanctifying power of the holy Ghost counts for anything.

Pastor John

Good question. The Bible gives us precious few details concerning whereabouts and conditions of those who have died, but I will summarize for you what I know from the scriptures.

Before Jesus ascended into heaven after his resurrection, the righteous who died descended into the heart of the earth, into the place called Hell, just as the wicked who died did. From the picture of Hell provided for us by Jesus's parable in Luke 16, it appears that Hell was divided into two parts, Torment and Paradise. The righteous were brought into that part of Hell which was called Paradise, and the wicked were sent into that part of Hell called Torment. It is a little difficult for us to picture Paradise as being a part of Hell because we are so use to thinking of Hell exclusively as a place of torment, but that is the picture that we are given by Jesus.

So close in Hell were these two places, Torment and Paradise, that people in one place could see and speak to people in the other. The righteous could observe the torment and weeping of the damned, but as Abraham said to the tormented rich man, "between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that they which would pass from here to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence" (Lk. 16:26).

Can you imagine that? There were some who longed to cross over into Torment from Paradise, no doubt to bring some relief to those poor, tormented souls, but they could not cross the great gulf that God had fixed there. How sad to think of righteous people in Paradise who helplessly watched and listened to relatives and friends in Torment screaming for help!

As I said earlier, this description of Hell is valid only for the time in history before the ascension of Jesus into heaven (Acts 1). Paul wrote that when Jesus ascended to his Father, he "led captivity captive" (Eph. 4:8). In other words, he took Paradise, the holding place for the righteous dead, with him into heaven when he went, or it may have been that the Father transferred it from hell to heaven after He accepted Jesus' sacrifice. From that time, the place where the righteous go after they have died changed. Now, for the faithful in the kingdom of God, "to be absent from the body" is to "be present with the Lord" (2Cor. 5:8). Since the Lord is now at the right hand of God in heaven, we know that the spirits of those who have "fallen asleep in the Lord" must be in heaven, too. We see this in the book of Revelation, where we find the souls of martyred saints beneath the altar of God in heaven (Rev. 6:11). Paul also said that if he departed this life, he would be in the presence of Jesus (Phip. 1:23).

Thanks for the question,G*. It is a question we all have asked at one time or another."

Pastor John

"In his name" means in the Spirit. It implies real authority from God. Jesus came in the Father's name. Paul was sent in Jesus's name. A man who claims to speak for God but has not been sent by God comes "in his own name", according to Jesus (Jn. 5:43). So, by "in my name", Jesus means those who are led by the Spirit to gather together. Yes, Jesus is with every individual saint at all times. But for judgment to be recognized by God, He requires "two or three" witnesses. Even the Law He gave to Moses included that rule. Jesus is with two or three who are gathered in his name in a special way. Their meeting bears weight in heaven and on earth. Doctrines taught, commandments decided upon, and decisions made by that two or three cannot be circumvented by any saint who has dealings with them because they are not in the flesh but in the Spirit; that is, "in his name". I hope that answers your questions. Let me know."

John